Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do you believe in evolution?

As I lack belief in all things, I lack belief in evolution, not surprisingly.

 

[JayUtah]

A silly question of yours.

Answer: A belief.

Not a silly question at all. If someone is taught the facts of biological evolution and, based upon those facts, decides to believe in the conclusions that most theorists agree follow from those facts, that is both science and belief. That person has decided to make the inductive leap. You want to draw a hard line between science, based only on evidence, and belief, which you define as a proposition held in complete absence of, or even contrary to, evidence. That leaves inductive reasoning completely out in the cold.

It's very, very simplistic.

However, recall that science is true, whether or not one believes in it.

That wasn't my point. Cognitive neuroscience establishes that belief can be based on evidence, to a greater or lesser degree.

Further, Dr Karl Popper -- one of the greatest writers on the scientific method -- states that scientific conclusions must be "forever tentative." What he means by this is that science is not static. A conclusion held today may be fully consistent with known evidence, but must change to accommodate new evidence, even by negating prior held beliefs if necessary. Science is not "true" in that simplistic sense, but it is true in the sense that it endeavors always to be consistent with the known evidence. What does that mean? It means that belief in a scientifically-established theory at one point can still be belief in a false thing, if that theory is later overturned.

Your theory takes a very simplistic view of evidence, suggesting that it can never change over time or be inconsistent. In the real world -- which you haven't experienced yet -- evidence can be contradictory or spotty. Science must still find a way to deal with it, and that requires belief in the sense that our neuroscientists employ the term -- a conviction based partly on objective evidence and partly on other factors that are less externalized.

 

[JayUtah]

As I lack belief in all things...

A quick reading of this thread demonstrates that you are not without belief, as you define it. You're simply in denial, because you've attached emotional baggage to the concepts. You want to be seen as a purely logical thinker, unsullied by "non-evidence" belief. But you aren't; nobody is.

 

[JayUtah]

The tendency...

"Tendency" and "typical" are not the same thing. You really don't have a very good grasp of the English language.

Albeit, the critics are wrong; for belief typically opposes science.

No, your source does not say that. You have a serious problem with language comprehension. It says that if a person is deluded, he may filter the evidence based on that delusion. We know this already; it's old hat around here. It does not say that people are typically so deluded, or tend to be deluded. Please try to understand what a conditional statement is.

 

[JayUtah]

As I lack belief in all things, I lack belief in evolution, not surprisingly.

Most people consider evolution the scientifically tenable conclusion, based on the best available evidence. With your allegedly superior understanding of facts and evidence, what is your better explanation for the origin of species?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

A quick reading of this thread demonstrates that you are not without belief, as you define it. You're simply in denial, because you've attached emotional baggage to the concepts. You want to be seen as a purely logical thinker, unsullied by "non-evidence" belief. But you aren't; nobody is.

"Tendency" and "typical" are not the same thing. You really don't have a very good grasp of the English language.

Albeit, the critics are wrong; for belief typically opposes science.

No, your source does not say that. You have a serious problem with language comprehension.

Wrong again, JayUtah.

A tendency is a trend, or inclination towards a particular behaviour.

tendency
ˈtɛnd(ə)nsi/Submit
noun
an inclination towards a particular characteristic or type of behaviour.
"for students, there is a tendency to socialize in the evenings"


So, the article does mention that belief typically opposes science, regardless of your feelings.

 

[Aridas]

Wrong, JayUtah.

Article:

"
The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs. Likewise, if an individual has strong pre-existing beliefs that are consistent with a delusional account, these beliefs might lead to acceptance of the delusional account without any additional deficit in belief evaluation. In this latter case, the new delusion would fit within the pre-existing web of beliefs, so would be accepted, while intact belief evaluation could serve to eliminate alternative, non-delusional accounts that are not consistent with the pre-existing web of beliefs."


Albeit, the critics are wrong; for belief typically opposes science.

...You have no idea what you just quoted, do you? It doesn't even come close to saying that belief typically opposes science. That quote is referencing, in short, the effects of confirmation bias, not actually belief. Confirmation bias, quite frankly, is something that everyone should be on guard against. Thus, it's particularly ironic that you would quote this as if it somehow even could support your case, given that you're only showing off how you're doing exactly what it describes.

 

[JayUtah]

A tendency is a trend...

Your article says that when there is a tendency toward a certain mode of belief, certain behaviors may be expected. It does not, as you claim, establish that this trend or tendency is typical.

You really lack basic language comprehension.

So, the article does mention that belief typically opposes science.

No, it doesn't. It says it can, and when it does we can observe certain things. Your article certainly does not confirm your claim that belief and science are mutually exclusive. In fact it discusses at length how those concepts may be blurred in practice.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Not a silly question at all. If someone is taught the facts of biological evolution and, based upon those facts, decides to believe in the conclusions that most theorists agree follow from those facts, that is both science and belief. That person has decided to make the inductive leap. You want to draw a hard line between science, based only on evidence, and belief, which you define as a proposition held in complete absence of, or even contrary to, evidence. That leaves inductive reasoning completely out in the cold.

It's very, very simplistic.



That wasn't my point. Cognitive neuroscience establishes that belief can be based on evidence, to a greater or lesser degree.

Further, Dr Karl Popper -- one of the greatest writers on the scientific method -- states that scientific conclusions must be "forever tentative." What he means by this is that science is not static. A conclusion held today may be fully consistent with known evidence, but must change to accommodate new evidence, even by negating prior held beliefs if necessary. Science is not "true" in that simplistic sense, but it is true in the sense that it endeavors always to be consistent with the known evidence. What does that mean? It means that belief in a scientifically-established theory at one point can still be belief in a false thing, if that theory is later overturned.

Your theory takes a very simplistic view of evidence, suggesting that it can never change over time or be inconsistent. In the real world -- which you haven't experienced yet -- evidence can be contradictory or spotty. Science must still find a way to deal with it, and that requires belief in the sense that our neuroscientists employ the term -- a conviction based partly on objective evidence and partly on other factors that are less externalized.

Wrong, JayUtah.

Non beliefism underlines that belief, opposes science, as it may concern non evidence, rather than (evidence never changes??)

Never had I once mentioned that science was perfect and unchanging, but instead that belief may facilitate the ignorance of evidence altogether.

 

[Aridas]

Wrong, JayUtah.

Non beliefism underlines that belief, opposes science, as it may concern non evidence, rather than (evidence never changes??)

Never had I once mentioned that science was perfect and unchanging, but instead that belief may facilitate the ignorance of evidence altogether.

...And doing so while pointedly ignoring the nature of belief and belief's actual relationship with science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

...You have no idea what you just quoted, do you? It doesn't even come close to saying that belief typically opposes science. That quote is referencing, in short, the effects of confirmation bias, not actually belief. Confirmation bias, quite frankly, is something that everyone should be on guard against. Thus, it's particularly ironic that you would quote this as if it somehow even could support your case, given that you're only showing off how you're doing exactly what it describes.

Don't you tire of being wrong?

Here is the remainder of the article:

The significant limitations of ordinary belief evaluation could also lead to the acceptance of unusual beliefs in the absence of pathology (Pechey and Halligan, 2011). The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove picture for rule 6

FOOTNOTE:
O 'wise' one, what is it that the beings are confirming, if not belief? (Although the article had long specified belief)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

...And doing so while pointedly ignoring the nature of belief and belief's actual relationship with science.

Rather than ignore, I underlined the negative impact that belief designates with respect to science, as is evidenced by cognitive papers on belief..

 

[JayUtah]

Non beliefism underlines that belief, opposes science, as it may concern non evidence, rather than (evidence never changes??)

Gibberish.

Never had I once mentioned that science was perfect and unchanging...

Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's the most-assigned work on the subject, if you were studying this academically. Your concept of science is, essentially, that it is the perfect secular religion. You need to fix that. You're not a scientist and you've never worked as a scientist, so I don't expect you know how science really approaches knowledge.

...but instead that belief may facilitate the ignorance of evidence altogether.

You say belief "by definition" negates evidence. Now you're trying to backpedal and soften the lines because the body of academic research -- which you just now realizes exists and relates to your claims -- says so. You're really not fooling anyone, you know.

 

[JayUtah]

[delete]

 

[JayUtah]

The significant limitations of ordinary belief evaluation could also lead to the acceptance of unusual beliefs in the absence of pathology (Pechey and Halligan, 2011). The tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and be overly influenced by it, in particular, could lead to the acceptance or entertainment of unusual beliefs.

Again, this says that when a certain cause is observed, a certain effect may be expected. It does not say the cause occurs typically. You really don't understand what you read.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Gibberish.



Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's the most-assigned work on the subject, if you were studying this academically. Your concept of science is, essentially, that it is the perfect secular religion. You need to fix that. You're not a scientist and you've never worked as a scientist, so I don't expect you know how science really approaches knowledge.

I see you are holding on to your priorly erroneous expression.

Once more, never have I once written anywhere, that science is perfect.

You say belief "by definition" negates evidence. Now you're trying to backpedal and soften the lines because the body of academic research -- which you just now realizes exists and relates to your claims -- says so. You're really not fooling anyone, you know.

The body of research had long confirmed non beliefism.

See the remainder of the article:

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information..."

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Again, this says that when a certain cause is observed, a certain effect may be expected. It does not say the cause occurs typically. You really don't understand what you read.

Blame me not for your incompetence.

You priorly expressed that the confirmation bias "isn't close to" talking about belief.

What precisely is the article referring to confirming?

What are the subjects said to be confirming, o "wise" one?

 

[JayUtah]

Once more, never have I once written anywhere, that science is perfect.

Not explicitly, but you treat it as a sort of platonic opposite to your caricature of belief.

The body of research had long confirmed non beliefism.

No.

See the remainder of the article:

I have. It doesn't say what you say it says.

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information..."

Again, that's a conditioned statement. Learn to read conditionals.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Your article says that when there is a tendency toward a certain mode of belief, certain behaviors may be expected. It does not, as you claim, establish that this trend or tendency is typical.
You really lack basic language comprehension.

No, it doesn't. It says it can, and when it does we can observe certain things. Your article certainly does not confirm your claim that belief and science are mutually exclusive. In fact it discusses at length how those concepts may be blurred in practice.

Wrong once more, wise one.

"Indeed, the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment, which reflects the general tendency to rely on initial judgements and discount newly obtained information, means that knowledge received after the initial judgment may be distorted to fit the original hypothesis. In support of this, there is research suggesting that beliefs may persevere even when the initial evidence for the beliefs is discredited".

Thusly, the critics had been wrong all along; wrong based on the dictionary, and wrong based in cognitive papers that are reflected in dictionaries' descriptions.

 

[JayUtah]

Blame me not for your incompetence.

Where have you shown I'm incompetent?

You priorly expressed that the confirmation bias "isn't close to" talking about belief.

No, that was another guy. Keep your critics straight.

What precisely is the article referring to confirming?

What are the subjects said to be confirming, o "wise" one?

Your other critic simply noted that the article to which you have hitched your wagon does nothing more than discuss the confirmation bias, which is old at around here. The confirmation bias specifically discusses evidence that favors one's belief. What makes it a bias is that it's selectively chosen from among all available evidence. That rather throws a wrench in your theory that belief is devoid of evidence. Belief may evaluate evidence, but irrationally.